First and most important, talking up the innate superiority of the Israelis over the Palestinians isn’t, by any definition, a gaffe. That’s real, with real geopolitical consequences. He didn’t misspeak (and I’m not sure one can “misspeak” about such things anyway), and his initial claim to have been misinterpreted has been trumped by his decision to reiterate all the same points to the conservative audience at National Review.Mitt Romney cited David S. Landes' "The Wealth And Poverty Of Nations" as part of his analysis. As it happens, I have that book on my desk. Does Landes have any thoughts about the Israeli/Palestinian situation? Let's take a look!
In his book, Landes discusses the corrupting influence of oil wealth in recent Middle East history, and also talks about the importance of women reaching influential positions in Islamic societies. Landes also discusses Orientalism and the poverty of modern debates about the Middle East. With his defense of writer Bernard Lewis, it appears that Landes would probably qualify as a conservative in the American intellectual universe.
Nevertheless, Landes doesn't mention Palestine at all in his book, and makes only glancing references to Israel. Thus, it looks to me like Romney has taken Landes' big-think, Global Civilization approach and applied it to a very specific case (the Israel/Palestine quarrel) in a way that Landes didn't intend, and might not approve of.
It's hard being taken out of context, particularly when you spent so much time writing 650 pages of material, and trying very, very hard not to be taken out of context.
No comments:
Post a Comment